Skip to main content
PMC home page
Ambio logoLink to Ambio
. 2011 Jun 21;41(2):122–137. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0159-z

Phytoremediation Potential of Aquatic Macrophyte, Azolla

Anjuli Sood 1,✉, Perm L Uniyal 1, Radha Prasanna 2, Amrik S Ahluwalia 3
PMCID: PMC3357840  PMID: 22396093

Abstract

Aquatic macrophytes play an important role in the structural and functional aspects of aquatic ecosystems by altering water movement regimes, providing shelter to fish and aquatic invertebrates, serving as a food source, and altering water quality by regulating oxygen balance, nutrient cycles, and accumulating heavy metals. The ability to hyperaccumulate heavy metals makes them interesting research candidates, especially for the treatment of industrial effluents and sewage waste water. The use of aquatic macrophytes, such as Azolla with hyper accumulating ability is known to be an environmentally friendly option to restore polluted aquatic resources. The present review highlights the phytoaccumulation potential of macrophytes with emphasis on utilization of Azolla as a promising candidate for phytoremediation. The impact of uptake of heavy metals on morphology and metabolic processes of Azolla has also been discussed for a better understanding and utilization of this symbiotic association in the field of phytoremediation.

Keywords: Azolla, Bioaccumulation, Biosorption, Phytoremediation, Toxicity

Introduction

Rapid industrialization, urbanization, and population in the last few decades have added huge loads of pollutants in the water resources (CPBC 2008). Such unprecedented pollution in aquatic ecosystems needs eco-friendly cost-effective remediation technology. A large number of industries including textile, paper and pulp, printing, iron–steel, electroplating, coke, petroleum, pesticide, paint, solvent, and pharmaceutical etc. consume large volumes of water and organic chemicals which differ in their composition and toxicity. The discharge of effluents from these industrial units to various water bodies (rivers, canals, and lakes etc.) leading to water pollution is a matter of great concern, especially for developing countries like India. Developed countries have water pollution problems mainly due to industrial proliferation and modern agricultural technologies, which are mainly addressed through improving wastewater treatment techniques. However, the lack of technical knowhow, weak implementation of environmental policies, and limited financial resources has given rise to serious challenges.

Among various water pollutants, heavy metals are of major concern because of their persistent and bio-accumulative nature (Rai et al. 1981; Lokeshwari and Chandrappa 2007; Chang et al. 2009; Yadav et al. 2009). Water is an indispensable part for the sustenance of mankind and the increasing awareness about the environment, especially aquatic ecosystems have attracted the attention of researchers worldwide. A definite need exists to develop a low cost and eco-friendly technology to remove pollutants particularly heavy metals, thereby improving water quality. Phytoremediation offers an attractive alternative. Among these, Azolla, a free-floating, fast growing, and nitrogen fixing pteridophyte seems to be an excellent candidate for removal, disposal, and recovery of heavy metals from the polluted aquatic ecosystems (Arora et al. 2006; Umali et al. 2006).

In India, where most of the developmental activities are still dependent upon water bodies, heavy metal pollution is posing serious environmental and health problems (Sánchez-Chardi et al. 2009; Siwela et al. 2009). Heavy metals are metallic chemical elements with a high atomic weight and density much greater (at least five times) than water. They are highly toxic and cause ill effects at very low concentrations e.g. mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), thallium (Tl), and lead (Pb). They are added to the aquatic system, either naturally by slow leaching from soil/rock to water or through anthropogenic sources. In recent times, anthropogenic inputs, such as discharge of untreated effluent (waste water), have contributed to the predominant causation. A survey carried out by Central Pollution Control Board (2008) reported that ground water in 40 districts from 13 states of India i.e. Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and five blocks of Delhi is contaminated with heavy metals. Lokeshwari and Chandrappa (2007) reported the bioavailability of heavy metals in Dasarahalli tank located in Bangalore (India) as Zn > Cd > Ni > Fe > Cu > Pb > Cr and warned the high health risks to human beings, due to the ability of these metals to enter the food chain.

Phytoremediation

Many conventional technologies—chemical precipitation, ultrafiltration, chemical oxidation and reduction, electrochemical treatment, reverse osmosis, coagulation-flocculation, and ion exchange etc. are used to clean heavy metal pollutants (Volesky 2001; Rai 2009). Each of the remediation technology has specific benefits and limitations (EPA 1997) but in general none of them is cost-effective (Volesky 2001; Rai 2009). Many studies have been conducted to improve the water quality through natural means to overcome this problem. Boyd (1970), Stewart (1970), Wooten and Dodd (1976), and Conwell et al. (1977) were among the pioneers to demonstrate the nutrient removal potential of aquatic plants. Seidal (1976), Wolverton and McDonald (1976), and Wolverton and Mckown (1976) experimentally proved the importance of aquatic plants in removing organic contaminants from aquatic environments. Thereafter, this approach is emerging as an innovative tool, because plants are solar-driven and thus make this technology a cost-effective mode, with great potential to achieve sustainable environment.

The term “phytoremediation” comes from the Greek φυτο (phyto) = plant, and Latin “remedium” = restoring balance, or remediation; consists of mitigating pollutant concentrations in contaminated soils, water or air with naturally occurring or genetically engineered plants that have ability to accumulate, degrade or eliminate metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil, and its derivatives etc. (Flathman and Lanza 1998; Prasad and Freitas 2003). The main objective behind the development of phytoremediation technologies is their eco-friendly and cost-effective nature. Other advantages and limitations of phytoremediation are compared in Table 1. The limitations of phytoremediation can be overcome using plants having high biomass, faster growth rate, and ability to adapt with wide rage of environmental conditions. In this respect, the water fern Azolla has many advantages. The free-floating habitat, ability to grow in N-deficit sites, known potential to tolerate wide range of pollutants, and accumulation of different heavy metals from contaminated sites reflect exploration a more promising candidate in future for phytoremediation (Arora et al. 2006; Umali et al. 2006). This review is an attempt to gather information available till date regarding phytoaccumulation potential of aquatic macrophyte Azolla, emphasizing its strengths and need for in-depth research related to its exploitation at commercial level.

Table 1.

Advantages and limitations of phytoremediation

Advantages Limitations
Cost- effective and eco-friendly technology as compared to traditional process both in situ and ex-situ Process is effective with respect to the surface area covered and limited by the depth reached by the roots
It uses naturally inherent potential of naturally occurring plants and microbes to clean polluted sites. Help in preserving the natural state of environment The response of plant and microbe varies under different growth conditions (i.e. climate, temperature, light intensity, altitude etc.)
It can be used to treat sites with more than one pollutant Success of phytoremediation depends upon the tolerance plants used to treat pollutant.
After phytoremediation, the hyperaccumulating plants can be used for retrieval of the precious heavy metals as bio-ores There exists a possibility of heavy metals re- entering the environment, because of their biodegradable nature
Open in a new tab

Aquatic Macrophytes and Their Potential to Accumulate Heavy Metals

Aquatic macrophytes include a diverse group of photosynthetic organisms, large enough to be seen with the naked eye. It includes aquatic spermatophytes (flowering plants), pteridophytes (ferns), and bryophytes (mosses, hornworts, and liverworts). However, Schwarz and Haves (1997) also included the charophytes (Chara spp. and Nitella spp.) as aquatic macrophytes. Chambers et al. (2008) described that aquatic macrophytes are represented in seven plant divisions: Cyanobacteria, Chlorophyta, Rhodophyta, Xanthophyta, Bryophyta, Pteridophyta, and Spermatophyta. These aquatic macrophytes are usually classified into four groups depending upon their growth forms: Group 1 includes emergent macrophytes i.e. plants rooted in soil and emerging to significant heights above the water e.g. Phragmites australis, Typha latifolia etc. Group II includes floating leaved macrophytes/plants that occur on submerged sediments at water depths from about 0.5–3.0 m and include mainly angiosperms e.g. Potamogeton pectinatus etc. The third group comprises submerged macrophytes or plants primarily growing completely below the surface of water including mosses, charophytes, a few pteridophytes (Ceratophyllum demersum), and many angiosperms (Myriophyllum spicatum, Vallisneria spirallis, and Hydrilla sp. etc.). Group IV comprises free-floating macrophytes representing plants that are nonrooted to substratum, highly diversified group in habitats and forms e.g. Eichhornia crassipes, Salvinia sp., Azolla sp., and Lemna sp. etc.

Aquatic macrophytes are more suitable for wastewater treatment than terrestrial plants because of their faster growth and larger biomass production, relative higher capability of pollutant uptake, and better purification effects due to direct contact with contaminated water. They also play an important role in the structural and functional aspects of aquatic ecosystems by altering water movement regimes (flow and wave impact conditions), providing shelter to fish and aquatic invertebrates and serving as a food source, and altering water quality by regulating oxygen balance, nutrient cycle, and accumulating heavy metals (Srivastava et al. 2008; Dhote and Dixit 2009). Their ability to hyperaccumulate heavy metals make them interesting research candidates especially for the treatment of industrial effluents and sewage waste water (Mkandawire et al. 2004; Arora et al. 2006; Upadhyay et al. 2007; Mishra et al. 2009; Rai 2010a).The potential of aquatic marcophytes for heavy metal removal has been investigated and reviewed extensively (Brooks and Robinson 1998; Cheng 2003; Prasad and Freitas 2003; Suresh and Ravishankar 2004; Srivastva et al. 2008; Dhir et al. 2009a; Dhote and Dixit 2009; Marques et al. 2009; Rai 2009). Table 2 summarizes the recent literature on phytoremediation potential of some macrophytes. It clearly pointed out some generalizations such as existence of a wide variation with respect to the amount of heavy metal accumulation by different plants indicating that phytoremediation potential of aquatic plants is dependent upon the tolerance level and toxicity of plant genera or species employed in a particular study. Secondly, within a particular plant genus and/or species, there exists a difference in accumulation potential for the same heavy metal. The existing variation is because the phytoremediation potential is regulated by environmental factors like chemical speciation and initial concentrations of the metal, temperature, pH, redox potential, salinity, and interaction of different heavy metals among each other. Aravind et al. (2009) reported that supplementation of heavy metal Zn in growth media containing Cd, resulted in decrease in accumulation of Cd in Ceratophyllum demersum indicating the existence of metal–metal interactions (Zn and Cd). Boulé et al. ( 2009) found much lower Cu uptake and tolerance levels in Lemna minor from the noncontaminated area compared to another ecotype (L. minor) from uranium-polluted mine. Aquatic macrophytes have ability to concentrate heavy metals in their roots, shoots as well as leaves. However, the accumulation of heavy metals is much higher in roots of these plants (Mishra et al. 2009; Paiva et al. 2009; Mufarrege et al. 2010). V.K. Mishra and Tripathi (2008) compared the phytoremediation potential of three aquatic macrophytes and concluded that Eichhornia crassipes was more efficient in removal of heavy metals (Fe, Zn, Cu, Cr, and Cd) followed by Pistia stratiotes and Spirodela polyrrhiza. Rahman et al. (2008) reported that external supplementation of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in the growth medium of Spirodela polyrhiza increased the uptake of heavy metal, As(V) and As(III). A very interesting feature revealed by studies on model plants is that the key step of hyperaccumulation does not rely on the novel genes but on the differential regulation and expression of common genes in hyperaccumulator and nonhyperaccumulator plants.

Table 2.

Recent literature on macrophytes known for their potential to accumulate heavy metals

Plants Heavy metals Accumulation (dry weight basis) Reference
Eichhornia crassipes Hg 119 ng Hg g−1 Molisani et al. (2006)
Cd 3992 µg Cd g−1 K.K. Mishra et al. (2007), S. Mishra et al. (2007)
Cu 314 µg Cu g−1 Hu et al. (2007)
Cr, Cd, Ni 2.31 mg Cr g−1
1.98 mg Cd g−1
1.68 mg Ni g−1 		Verma et al. (2008)
Cr 1258 µg Cr g−1 Paiva et al. (2009)
Elodea densa Hg 177 ng Hg g−1 Molisani et al. (2006)
Eleocharis acicularis Fe, Pb, Zn, Mn, Cr, Cu, Ni 59 500 µg Fe g−1
1120 µg Pb g−1
964 µg Zn g−1
388 µg Mn g−1
265 µg Cr g−1
235 µg Cu g−1
47 µg Ni g−1 		Hoang Ha et al. (2009)
Lemna gibba Ur, As 897 µg Ur g−1
1022 µg As g−1 		Mkandawire et al. (2004)
Zn 4.23–25.81 mg Zn g−1 Khellaf and Zerdaoui (2009)
Lemna minor Ti 221 µg Ti g−1 Babic et al. (2009)
Cu 400 µg Cu g−1 Boule et al. (2009)
Pb 8.62 mg Pb g−1 Uysal and Taner (2009)
Elodea canadensis Ni >3500 µg Ni g−1 Maleva et al. (2009)
Pistia stratiotes Hg 0.57 mg Hg g−1
215 ng Hg g−1
83 µg Hg g−1 		Mishra et al. (2009)
Molisani et al. (2006)
Skinner et al. (2007)
Cr, Cd, Ni 2.50 mg Cr g−1
2.13 mg Cd g−1
1.95 mg Ni g−1 		Verma et al. (2008)
Cr, Ni, Zn > 9 mg Cr g−1
> 10 mg Ni g−1
> 12 mg Zn g−1 		Mufarrege et al. (2010)
Egeria densa Cd, Cu, Zn 70.25 mg Cd g−1
45.43 mg Cu g−1
30.40 mg Zn g−1 		Pietrobelli et al. (2009)
Salvinia auriculata Pb 191 ng Hg g−1
494 µg Pb g−1 		Molisani et al. (2006)
Espinoza-Qui˜nones et al. (2009)
Salvinia minima Cd, Pb; 11 262 µg Cd g−1
7705 µg Pb g−1 		Olguin et al. (2002)
Pb 14 000 µg Pb g−1 Sánchez-Galván et al. (2008)
Salvinia natans Cr 7.40 mg Cr g−1 Dhir et al. (2009b)
Ceratophyllum demersum As 525 μg As g−1 K.K. Mishra et al. (2007), S. Mishra et al. (2007, 2008), V.K. Mishra et al. (2008)
Cd 1293 µg Cd g−1
Cd, Zn 143 µg Cd g−1
57 µg Zn g−1 		Aravind et al. (2009)
Potamogeton pusillus Cu 162 μg Cu g−1 Monferran et al. (2009)
Vallisneria spiralis Cr, Cd, Ni 2.85 mg Cr g−1
2.62 mg Cd g−1
2.14 mg Ni g−1 		Verma et al. (2008)
Hg 158 µg Hg g−1 Rai and Tripathi (2009)
Myriphyllum triphyllum Cd 17 µg Cd g−1 Sivaci et al. (2004)
Typha aungustifoila Cr, Zn, Cu 20 210 µg Cr g−1
16 325 µg Zn g−1
7,022 µg Cu g−1 		Firdaus-e-Bareen and Khilji (2008)
Typha latifolia Zn, Ni, Cu 340 µg Zn g−1
55 µg Ni g−1
50 µg Cu g−1 		Sasmaz et al. (2008)
Sagittaria montevidensis Hg 62 mg Hg g−1 Molisani et al. (2006)
Wolffia globosa As >1000 µg As g−1 Zhang et al. (2009)
Spirodela polyrhiza As 7.65 n mol As g−1 Rahman et al. (2007)
Mentha sp. Fe 378 µg Fe g−1 Arora et al. (2008)
Open in a new tab

Bioaccumulation and Biosorption

Both the living and dead biomass of aquatic macrophytes can be used for removal of heavy metal contaminants from the aquatic ecosytems (Umali et al. 2006; Rai 2008; Mashkani and Ghazvini 2009; Mishra et al. 2009). Based on the state of biomass, the term “Bioaccumulation” is defined as the phenomenon of uptake of heavy metals by living cell, whereas “biosorption” refers to passive uptake of pollutants by dead/inactive biological material or material derived from biological sources. Other differences among both the methods are summarized in Table 3. In general, the use of living biomass may not be a viable option for the continuous treatment of highly toxic contaminants as the bioaccumulation of these heavy metals is closely connected with their toxicity, affecting plant and its growth. Once the toxicant concentration becomes too high after long duration of treatment, the amount of toxicant accumulated will attain a saturation level (Eccles 1995). Beyond this point, the plant metabolism gets interrupted, resulting in death of the organism. However, the biosorption depends on the type of plant genera/species used and conditions of performed process: temperature, pH, biomass concentration, and metal ions concentration, which are flexible and can be easily altered. The binding of metal ions by the biomass is a two-step process where initially the metal was taken up onto the surface of the cell (biosorption) followed by the bioaccumulation inside the cell due to the metal uptake metabolism. Hence, the first stage can be performed by both, living and dead biomass (Saygideger et al. 2005).

Table 3.

Differences between bioaccumulation and biosorption

Characters Bioaccumulation Biosorption
Biomass type Living Dead
Commercial applicability Relatively less applicable because living material require additions of nutrients and other inputs More applicable
Cost Usually high Low
Maintenance/storage External energy is required to maintained culture in active growth phase Low maintenance required and easy to store.
Selectivity Better Less effective than bioaccumulation which can be improved by modification/processing of biomass
Sensitivity Nutrient dependent Nutrient independent
Temperature Severely affect the process Does not affect the process because biomass is dead
Metal location Inter and intracellular Extracellular
Degree of uptake Active process Passive process
Rate of uptake Slower Very fast
Desorption Not possible Possible
Regeneration and use Since metal is intracellularly accumulated, the chances are very limited High possibility of biosorbent regeneration, with possible reuse for a number of cycles.
Open in a new tab

Azolla—a Better Macrophyte for Phytoremediation

Azolla is a small aquatic fern belonging to Phylum-Pteridophyta, Class Polypodiopsida, Order Salviniales, Family Azollaceae with a monotypic genus (Wagnar 1997; Pabby et al. 2003b, c, Pabby et al. 2004b; Sood and Ahluwalia 2009). This fern represents the only example of Pteridophyte harboring symbiotic association with diazotrophic, nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria, and bacteria residing in leaf cavities (Sood et al. a, b; Sood and Ahluwalia 2009). This three partner association remains together during vegetative and reproductive phase of life history, thereby excluding the need of re-inoculation, hence proving its potential over and above other biofertilizers (Carrapico 2010). Apart from its agronomic potential, this association has diversified applications as food and feed supplements, weed suppressors, larvicide, utility in biogas and hydrogen production, and waste water treatment (Ahluwalia and Pabby 2002; Pabby et al. 2004b), which is illustrated in Fig. 1. Increasing environmental awareness and concern has attracted scientific community to extend its exploitation more vigorously in the area of phytoremediation because the fern can hyperaccumulate variety of pollutants such as heavy metals, radionuclides, dyes, and pesticides etc. from aquatic ecosystems along with other macrophytes (Padmesh et al. 2006; Rai and Tripathi 2009; Mashkani and Ghazvini 2009; Sood et al. 2011). This fern has many features that prove it as a better plant system than many other macrophytes, which include:

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Benefits of Azolla in phytoremediation

Fast Growth Rate

The ability of Azolla to grow rapidly, doubling its biomass in 2–4 days, is the most important attribute, along with its free-floating nature (Arora and Saxena 2005; Kathiresan 2007; Sood et al. 2008a). Both these qualities help in its easy harvest for disposal or recovery of heavy metals from biomass.

Nitrogen-Fixing Ability

Nitrogen is among the most important macronutrient required for the synthesis of nucleic acids, proteins, phospholipids, and many secondary metabolites which play an important role in the overall growth of the plants (Amtmann and Armenguad 2009). The ability of Azolla to fix atmospheric nitrogen allows this fern to grow successfully in aquatic habitats lacking or having low levels of nitrogen (Pabby et al. 2001, 2003b; Sood et al. 2007). This may help Azolla to proliferate in polluted waters as well.

Biomass Disposal

The removal of heavy metal contaminants by aquatic macrophytes presents the problem of plant biomass disposal so as to prevent recycling of accumulated metals (Rai 2009). The water content in Azolla fronds varies between 90 and 94% (Serag et al. 2000). Therefore after drying, its volume reduces drastically, hence solving the problem of disposal to a much greater extent. The dry Azolla biomass can easily be transported for recovery of the heavy metal.

Phytoremediation Ability of Azolla

Both living and dead biomass of Azolla have been exploited for the removal of heavy metals from industrial effluents and sewage water (Bennicelli et al. 2004; Upadhyay et al. 2007; Rai 2008; Mashkani and Ghazvini 2009). Bioaccumulation potential of different species of Azolla for various heavy metals is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.

Literature on heavy metal bioaccumulation by various Azolla spp

Azolla spp. Heavy metal Initial concentration of heavy metal Duration of experiment (days) Heavy metal accumulated (dry weight basis) Reference
A. pinnata Hg 3.0 mg l−1 13 667 μg Hg g−1 Rai (2008)
Hg 10.0 μg l−1 21 450 μg Hg g−1 Mishra et al. (2009)
Hg 3.0 mg l−1 6 940 μg Hg g−1 Rai and Tripathi (2009)
Cd 3.0 mg l−1 13 740 μg Cd g−1 Rai (2008)
Cd 10.0 mg l−1 7 2759 μg Cd g−1 Arora et al. (2004)
Cr(III) 3.0 mg l−1 13 1095 μg Cr g−1 Rai (2010b)
Cr(VI) 20.0 μg l−1 14 9125 μg Cr g−1 Arora et al. (2006)
Ni 500 mg l−1 7 16 252 μg Ni g−1 Arora et al. (2004)
A. caroliniana As 80.0 μg l−1 7 >120 μg As g−1 Zhang et al. (2008)
Pb 1.0 mg l−1 12 416 μg Pb g−1 Stepniewska et al. (2005)
Cd 1.0 mg l−1 12 259 μg Pb g−1 Stepniewska et al. (2005)
Cr(VI) 1.0 mg l−1 12 356 μg Cr g−1 Bennicelli et al. (2004)
Cr(III) 1.0 mg l−1 12 964 μg Cr g−1 Bennicelli et al. (2004)
Hg 1.0 mg l−1 12 578 μg Hg g−1 Bennicelli et al. (2004)
A. filiculoides As 80.0 μg l−1 7 >60 μg As g−1 Zhang et al. (2008)
Cr(VI) 20.0 μg l−1 14 12 383 μg Cr g−1 Arora et al. (2006)
Cr(III) 9.0 mg l−1 (ppm) 4 1904 ppm Sela et al. (1989)
Cd 9.0 mg l−1 (ppm) 4 10 441 ppm Sela et al. (1989)
Cd 10.0 mg l−1 7 2608 μg Cd g−1 Arora et al. (2004)
Ni 9.0 mg l−1 (ppm) 4 8814 ppm Sela et al. (1989)
Ni 500 mg l−1 7 28 443 μg Ni g−1 Arora et al. (2004)
Cu 9.0 mg l−1 (ppm) 4 9224 ppm Sela et al. (1989)
Zn 9.0 mg l−1 (ppm) 4 6408 ppm Sela et al. (1989)
A. microphylla Cr(VI) 20.0 μg l−1 14 14 931 μg Cr g−1 Arora et al. (2006)
Ni 500 mg l−1 7 21 785 μg Ni g−1 Arora et al. (2004)
Cd 10.0 mg l−1 7 1805 μg Cd g−1 Arora et al. (2004)
A. imbricata Cd 0.5 μg l−1 9 183 μg Cd g−1 Dai et al. (2006)
Open in a new tab

Rai (2008) reported that A. pinnata removed 70–94% of heavy metals (Hg and Cd) from ash slurry and chlor-alkali effluent in Singrauli region of U.P. (India) and the concentration of these heavy metals ranged between 310 and 740 mg Kg−1 (μg g−1) dry mass in tissues of Azolla (Table 4). Zhang et al. (2008) showed large variation in bioaccumulation potential of As among 50 strains of Azolla grown hydroponically in a growth chamber that ranged from 29 to 397 mg Kg−1 (μg g−1) dry mass. Further among eight tested strains, concentration of As was the highest (284 mg Kg−1 or 284 μg g−1 DW) in the frond of A. caroliniana and lowest in A. filiculoides (54 mg Kg−1 or 54 μg g−1 DW). Benaroya et al. (2004) compared the Pb content in A. filiculoides and its isolated apoplast. The Pb content was 0.37, 2.3, and 1.8% of the dry weight after 2, 4, and 6 days of growth, respectively, in the whole plant, while the isolated Azolla apoplast contained 0.125, 1.22, and 1.4% Pb, respectively. Sela et al. (1989) reported that A. filiculoides also accumulate heavy metals such as Cd, Cr, Cu, and Zn and their content was 10,000, 1990, 9000, and 6500 ppm, respectively (Table 4). Arora et al. (2004, 2006) compared A. filiculoides with A. microphylla and A. pinnata for its phytoaccumulation potential of Cd, Cr, and Ni grown in a polyhouse. They recorded that Cd, Ni, and Cr content (ppm) in tissues was in the following order: A. microphylla > A. filiculoides > A. pinnata; A. pinnata > A. microphylla > A. filiculoides and A. pinnata > A. filiculoides > A. microphylla, respectively. The BCF (Bio concentration factor) of heavy metals (Cd, Cr) recorded by Arora et al. (2004, 2006) for A. filiculoides was also much higher than BCF values reported by Sela et al. (1989). Jafari et al. (2010) observed the highest bioconcentration potential of Pb2+, Cu2+, Mn2+, and Zn2+ was 94% in A. microphylla, 96% in A. filiculoides, 71% in A. pinnata, and 98% in A. microphylla, respectively. Another species of Azolla, A. caroliniana also has potential to bioaccumulate Hg and Cr (III and VI). The heavy metal contents in tissues of A. caroliniana ranged from 71 to 964 mg kg−1 or 964 μg g−1dm; the highest level (964 μg g−1dm) was observed for or Cr(III) suggesting that A. caroliniana has the capacity to take up these heavy metals (75–100%) from municipal wastewater (Bennicelli et al. 2004). In another investigation with A. caroliniana, the amount of Pb and Cd was brought down to 90 and 22%, respectively, in the growth media supplemented with these heavy metals. The content of heavy metal Pb was up to 416 kg−1 or 416 μg g−1 dry weight (Table 4) and that of Cd was up to 259 mg Cd Kg−1 or 259 μg g−1 dry weight in fronds of A. caroliniana (Stepniewska et al. 2005). Jain et al. (1989, 1990) reported that the presence of one heavy metal in solution influenced negatively the uptake of other heavy metal. They found that the concentration of Pb decreased in A. pinnata when equal concentration of Zn was supplemented along with Pb (Jain et al. 1990). Similar findings were observed by Gaumat et al. (2008) under mixed (Pb + Fe) treatment with A. pinnata as compared to single Fe treatment.

The bioaccumulation potential of Azolla spp. for various heavy metals has been compared with other aquatic macrophytes by many workers (Upadhaya et al. 2007; S. Mishra et al. 2008; V.K. Mishra et al. 2008; Mishra et al. 2009; Rai and Tripathi 2009; Rai 2010a). Mallick et al. (1996) reported that Lemna minor was more efficient in accumulating Zn and Cr than Azolla pinnata in Ni,whereas both macrophytes showed preference for Zn followed by Ni and Cr. S. Mishra et al. 2008; V.K. Mishra et al. 2008 observed that the concentrations of Cu, Cd, Mn, Pb, and Hg were higher in Eichhornia crassipes than in Azolla pinnata, Lemna minor, and Spirodela polyrrhiza collected from a site of the man-made reservoir Govind Ballabh Pant Sagar, India. Mishra et al. (2009) compared the mercury (Hg) removal capacities of two aquatic macrophytes, Pistia stratiotes and Azolla pinnata from coal mining effluent. Both the macrophytes reduced mercury level in the effluent via rhizofiltration and the removal rate of Pistia stratiotes and A. pinnata was 80 and 68%, respectively. They concluded that P. stratiotes was a better accumulator of mercury, with higher removal efficiencies than A. pinnata. However, Rai and Tripathi (2009) recorded higher percentage removal (80–90%) and Hg accumulation (940 mg Kg−1 or 940 μg g−1 dry mass) of Azolla sp. than Vallisneria spirallia in polluted water of G.B. Pant Sagar located in Singrauli Industrial Region, India. During field phytoremediation experiments conducted in the same region, Rai (2010a) recorded a marked reduction in concentrations of nine heavy metals (Cu, Cr, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg, and Cd). The decrease in heavy metal content ranged from 25 to 67.90% at Belwadah site (with Eichhornia crassipes and Lemna minor), 25 to 77.14% at Dongia Nala site (with E. crassipes, L. minor and Azolla pinnata), and 25 to 71.42% at Ash pond site (with L. minor and A. pinnata) receiving effluents from Thermal Power Plant, chlor-alkali industry and coal mine, respectively. Gaur et al. (1994) compared accumulation of heavy metals Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn by Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleid and Azolla pinnata. They concluded that the order of metal accumulation was Ni > Zn > Co = Cd > Cu > Pb > Cr in A. pinnata and Ni > Zn > Co > Cu > Cd > Pb > Cr in S. polyrhiza. In secondary treated sewage waste water, Upadhyay et al. (2007) reported the sequence order of percent removal of heavy metals by Eichhornia crassipes, Pistia stratiotes, Lemna minor, Azolla pinnata, and Spirodela polyrhiza was Fe > Cr > Cu > Cd > Zn > Ni and among these aquatic macrophytes, E. crassipes showed the highest removal capacity.

A direct comparison of findings of other macrophytes with Azolla species (as given in Table 4) is not possible due to difference in initial concentration of heavy metal and biomass of Azolla employed for particular investigation along with duration of the experiment, details of experimental design. Table 4 reveals the tremendous phytoaccumulation potential existing within and among Azolla spp.

Biosorption of Heavy Metals by Azolla

Azolla biomass, in dead or pretreated form, has been used for biosorption of heavy metals Cs, Sr, Pb, Zn, Ni, Cu, Au, Cd, and Cr by various workers (Cohen-Shoel et al. 2002; Rakhshaee et al. 2006; Umali et al. 2006; Nedumaran and Velan 2008; Mashkani and Ghazvini 2009). Table 5 summarizes the results of heavy metal biosorption by various workers. The bioaccumulation of heavy metals by Azolla spp. is known to exhibit a concentration-dependent relationship (Stepniewska et al. 2005; Arora et al. 2006; Dai et al. 2006; Rai and Tripathi 2009). Zhao and Duncan (1997, 1998a, b) investigated the removal of sexivalent Cr, Ni, and Zn by A. filiculoides from aqueous solution and from electroplating rinse effluent. The batch adsorption experiments (Table 5) showed that the maximum adsorption capacity of A. filiculoides for Cr6+ was 20.2 mg g−1 at pH 2 and temperature of 32°C (Zhao and Duncan 1997). The maximum uptake of Ni was found to be 27.9 mg g−1 at 60% saturation of the biomass, whereas in batch experiments it was 43.3 mg g−1 (Zhao and Duncan 1998a). Zhao and Duncan (1998b) used A. filiculoides in fixed-bed sorption column for removal of Zn. The sorption capacity of 31.3 mg g−1 was observed at pH 6.2. In another study, the maximum zinc uptake by A. filiculoides in batch systems and column was found to be 45.2 and 30.4 mg g−1 at pH 6 and 6.2, respectively (Zhao et al. 1999). The nonviable biomass of A. filiculoides also removed 93 mg g−1 Pb from solution (Sanyahumbi et al. 1998) (Table 5). Lead removal remained at approximately 90% between 10 and 50°C and biomass concentration had little effect on lead removal (Sanyahumbi et al. 1998). Cohen-Shoel et al. (2002) found that the Sr2+-binding capacity of the control Azolla biofilter without prewash was 23 mg g−1 while that of the 4 liters KCl-treated Azolla was 32.8 mg g−1 (Table 5). Mashkani and Ghazvini (2009) conducted biosorption batch experiments to determine the Cs and Sr binding ability of native and chemically modified biomass derived from A. filiculoides. They observed the best Cs and Sr removal results when A. filiculoides was treated by MgCl2 and H2O2 at pH 7 for 12 h and washed by NaOH solution at pH 10.5 for 6 h. They suggested that pretreatment of Azolla modified the surface characteristics, which in turn, improved the biosorption process (Mashkani and Ghazvini 2009). Fogarty et al. (1999) compared Cu removal efficiencies of pre-treatment and immobilization of A. filiculoides biomass. They observed that epichlorhydrin-immobilized Azolla showed greater removal of Cu when compared with milled-sieved Azolla and untreated Azolla, and Azolla-based systems have biosorption capacities greater than comparable biomass systems and in line with commercial sorbent exchange values (Fogarty et al. 1999). Khosravi et al. (2005) compared heavy metal (Pb, Cd, Ni, and Zn) removal capacity of activated, semi-intact, and inactivated A. filiculoides wastewater. They reported maximum uptake capacities of these metal ions were 271, 111, 71, and 60 mg g−1, respectively, using the activated A. filiculoides by NaOH at pH 10.5 and then CaCl2/MgCl2/NaCl with total concentration of 2 M (2:1:1 mol ratio) separately (Table 5).

Table 5.

Literature on heavy metal biosorption by Azolla filiculoides

Type of biosorbent Metal Operating conditions Uptake (mg g−1) % removal Reference
Temp. (oC) pH
Native Cs 30 8 70 mg g−1 NA Mashkani and Ghazvini (2009)
Chemically modified (ferrocyanide Azolla) 130 mg g−1
Chemically modified (hydrogen peroxide Azolla) 195 mg g−1
Native Sr 30 9 117 mg g−1 NA
Chemically modified (ferrocyanide Azolla), 168 mg g−1
Chemically modified (hydrogen peroxide Azolla) 212 mg g−1
Chemically modified (treated with KCl) Sr NA NA 33 mg g−1 Cohen-Shoel et al. (2002)
Native Au NA 2 98 mg g−1 98.2% Umali et al. (2006)
Pre-treated Pb NA 7 186 mg g−1 NA Khosravi et al. (2005)
Semi-intact Azolla (biomass soaked in distilled water), Cd 95 mg g−1
Ni 54 mg g−1
Zn 48 mg g−1
Super-activated Azolla (activated at pH 10.5 and then using CaCl2/MgCl2/NaCl) Pb NA 10.5 271 mg g−1 90%
Cd 111 mg g−1 83%, 87%
Ni 71 mg g−1 76%
Zn 60 mg g−1
Dead activated Azolla Pb 25 ± 0.5 6.0 ± 0.2 92 mg g−1
Cd 47 mg g1
Ni 26 mg g1
Zn 25 mg g−1
Native Au NA 2 NA 99.9% Antunes et al. (2001)
Modified (Milled-sieved Azolla) Cu NA 364 µmol g−1 NA Fogarty et al. (1999)
Modified (Epichlorohydrin-immobilised Azolla) 320  µmol g−1 NA
Native Zn NA 6.2 30 mg g−1 NA Zhao et al. (1999)
Native Ni NA 7 28 mg g−1 NA Zhao and Duncan (1998a)
Native Zn NA 6.2 31 mg g−1 NA Zhao and Duncan (1998b)
Native Pb NA 3.5–4.5 93 mg g−1 95% Sanyahumbi et al. (1998)
Native Cr (VI) 32 2 120 mg g−1 NA Zhao and Duncan (1997)
Open in a new tab

The biosorption potential of Azolla for uptake of precious metals such as gold has been investigated by various groups (Antunes et al. 2001; Umali et al. 2006). Antunes et al. (2001) demonstrated 99.9% removal of gold from solution with 5 g A. filiculoides per liter. They observed that pH had a significant effect on gold removal. Complete removal of gold occurred at pH 2, with 42% removal at pH 3 and 4, and 63 and 73% removal at pH 5 and 6, respectively. The dried milled biomass of A. filiculoides removed up to 98.2% of gold from wastewater containing 5 mg per liter gold in batch biosorption process (Table 5), from a gold-plating factory. The gold uptake capacity of the fern biomass was 98 mg g−1 (Umali et al. 2006).

In general, a direct comparison of biosorption potential of Azolla data with other macrophytes is not possible, because of the differences in experimental conditions employed (pH, temperature) in various studies. The observed variability when the same Azolla sp. was employed for the same metal could also be due to different experimental conditions employed. Apart from the different experimental conditions, this variation may also be the result of the biomass being pretreated or chemically modified to improve the biosorbent characteristics (Table 5). It was surprising to see that only A. filiculoides has been exploited for biosorption studies.

Heavy Metal Phytotoxicity in Azolla

The heavy metals introduced into the aquatic system are known to pose high level of toxicities to the aquatic organisms and human beings (Sánchez-Chardi et al. 2009; Siwela et al. 2009). The effect of these toxic metals results in alterations at morphological, physiological/biochemical, and ultrastructural level in aquatic organisms, which can be used as biomonitoring tools for the assessment of metal pollution in aquatic ecosystems (Zhou et al. 2008).

Growth and Development

The literature showed that exposure of heavy metals suppressed the vegetative growth and sporulation in different species of Azolla depends on the tolerance of species as well as concentration of the heavy metal (Arora et al. 2004, 2006). The inhibition was invariably maximum at the highest concentration of heavy metals employed (Bennicelli et al. 2004; Arora et al. 2004, 2006; Stepniewska et al. 2005; Rai 2008). Bennicelli et al. (2004) reported that the presence of Hg, Cr(III), and Cr(VI) in growth medium with a concentration of 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 mg dm−3 caused 20–31% inhibition of growth of A. caroliniana. This reduction in growth was maximum in the presence of Hg (Bennicelli et al. 2004). The presence of Pb and Cd also decreased growth by 30–37% and 24–47%, respectively, in A. caroliniana, when subjected to the above mentioned concentration of these heavy metals (Stepniewska et al. 2005). Rai (2008) working with A. pinnata, observed 27–33.9% suppression of growth in the presence of various treatments (0.5, 1.0, and 3.0 mg l−1) of Cd and Hg. The decline in biomass was again highest with Hg (Rai 2008). While comparing tolerance of A. microphylla, A. pinnata, and A. filiculoides to the presence of Cr, Arora et al. (2006) observed A. filiculoides to be the best producing 72% of control biomass. The application of Cd, Cr, Mo, and Mn at a concentration of 3, 6, 5, and 10 μg ml−1, respectively, significantly decreased the sporulation frequency and number of sporocarps per plant in A. microphylla and A. caroliniana (Kar and Singh 2003).

Biochemical Effects

Toxicity of heavy metals in relation to biochemical parameters—pigments, photosynthesis, and activities of oxidative enzymes have been worked out by only few researchers (Sarkar and Jana 1986; Shi et al. 2003; Dai et al. 2006). Sarkar and Jana (1986) observed that the treatment of A. pinnata with As, Pb, Cu, Cd, and Cr (2 and 5 mg l−1 each), decreased Hill activity, chlorophyll content, protein and dry weight, and increased tissue permeability with respect to control. The effects were most pronounced with the highest treatment of (5 mg l−1). The harmful effects of the metals were in the order: Cd > Hg > Cu > As > Pb > Cr. Shi et al. (2003) showed that increase in concentration of Hg and Cd resulted in a drop in the chlorophyll content, mainly chlorophyll a and/b. The photosynthetic O2 evolution also decreased drastically, whereas respiration rate first peaked at 2 mg l−1 concentration of heavy metals and declined thereafter. The activities of SOD (Superoxide dismutase), CAT (Catalase), and POD (Peroxidase) also first increased and decreased afterward except the activity of POD, which decreased with the increasing concentration of Cd2+ (Shi et al. 2003). Dai et al. (2006) reported change in the color of fronds, a decrease in the contents of chlorophyll and carotenoids in the fronds of A. imbricata at higher Cd concentrations, while an increase in content of total phenolics and phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) activity were detected during Cd treatment. This suggested that the Cd-induced change in color of fronds might be due to the decrease in chlorophyll and carotenoids while the increase in total phenolics and their biosynthesis-related PAL play a role in detoxification of Cd in A. imbricata. Rai and Tripathi (2009) found a concentration-dependent decrease in the content of chlorophyll a, protein, RNA, and DNA, and nutrient (nitrate and phosphate) uptake was detected in A. pinnata because of Hg toxicity. Sánchez-Viveros et al. (2010) reported that heavy metal copper disrupted photosystem II resulting in drop in potential phytochemical yield at higher concentrations in A. filiculoides and A. caroliniana. They concluded that chlorophyll fluorescence analysis can be used as a useful physiological tool to assess early changes in photosynthetic performance of Azolla in response to heavy metal pollution (Sánchez-Viveros et al. 2010).

Effect on the Process of Nitrogen Fixation

Azolla is exploited worldwide as biofertilizer particularly in rice fields due to the biological nitrogen-fixing capacity of its symbiotic heterocystous cyanobionts (Pabby et al. 2003a, 2004a; Sood et al. 2008a, b). A number of abiotic and biotic factors are known to have a pronounced effect on the nitrogen-fixing capacity of this biofertilizer (Pabby et al. 2000, 2001, 2002a, 2002b, 2003b, 2004b). Sela et al. (1989) reported that Cd, Ni, and Zn completely inhibited nitrogenase activity in A. filiculoides while Cu and Cr partially suppressed nitrogen fixation. While comparing nitrogenase activity in three species of Azolla—A. microphylla, A. pinnata, and A. filiculoides—grown in medium containing different concentrations (1–20 μg ml−1) of Cr, the nitrogen fixation was not affected at 1–5 μg ml−1, but at higher concentrations (≥10 μg ml−1) it diminished significantly (Arora et al. 2006). Recently, Dai et al. (2009) reported considerable decrease in heterocyst frequency, the activities of nitrogenase and glutamine synthetase, amount of soluble proteins and total nitrogen, with both increase in Cd concentration (above 0.05 mg l−1) and duration of Cd treatment in A. imbricata, suggesting that higher cadmium treatment caused the disorder of nitrogen metabolism and reduced the accumulation of nitrogen in A. imbricata-Anabaena azollae symbiosis.

Ultrastructural Variation and Localization of Heavy Metals

The accumulation of heavy metals is known to result in various types of damage at the ultrastructural level (Sela et al. 1988, 1990; Shi et al. 2003; Gaumat et al. 2008). A localization study by X-ray microanalysis of heavy metals in A. filiculoides showed that Cu accumulated at a higher concentration in the root than in the shoot, whereas Cd content was similar in both organs (Sela et al. 1988). Cd ions are highly mobile in Azolla, and many of them were detoxified in aggregates containing PO4 and Ca (Sela et al. 1988). Furthermore, X-ray microanalysis revealed that the content of Cd increased in the inner epidermis, cortex, and bundle cell walls of roots within 77 h. The accumulation of Cd was characterized by the appearance of small dark grains with high content of cadmium, phosphate, and calcium along the epidermal cells (Sela et al. 1990). Ultrastructural observations of A. imbricata showed that the extent of damage was much more with higher concentrations and longer duration of incubation with heavy metals—Hg and Cd. The results showed swelling of chloroplast, disruption, and disappearance of chloroplast membrane and disintegration of chloroplasts; swelling of cristae of mitochondria, deformation and vacuolization of mitochondria; condensation of chromatin in nucleus, dispersion of nucleolus and disruption of nuclear membrane (Shi et al. 2003). Benaroya et al. (2004) observed the presence of Pb precipitates in the vacuoles of mesophyll cells of A. filiculoides which appeared as dark, electron dense deposits in light and transmission electron microscope in leaf cells of fronds treated with lead. All the observed lead deposits were localized in vacuoles, while larger lead deposits were found in mature leaves than in young leaves. However, no lead deposits were found in cells of the cyanobiont Anabaena. In A. pinnata, Pb treated fronds showed varied levels of ultramorphological changes such as compactness of fronds, closed stomata, and deposition of epicuticular waxes while Fe-treated fronds did not show these changes. They also observed that Pb-induced ultra-morphological abnormalities were relieved by presence of Fe in the medium under mixed (Pb + Fe) treatment (Gaumat et al. 2008).

Molecular Mechanism of Metal Hyperaccumulation

Hyperaccumualtion of heavy metal involves several steps, such as transport of heavy metal across plasma membrane, translocation of heavy metal, detoxification, and sequestration at cellular and whole plant level (Shah and Nongkynrih 2007; Rascio and Navari-Izzo 2011). In recent years, the understanding of entry of both essential and nonessential metal ions in plant cells at the molecular level, has greatly advanced. Several plant metal transporters identified so far include ZIP1-4, ZNT1, IRT1, COPT1, Nramp (natural resistance associated macrophage protein), AtVramp1/3/4, and LCT1 on the plasma membrane–cytosol interface; ZAT, CDF (cation diffusion facilitator), ABC type, AtMRP, HMT1, CAX2 seen in vacuoles; RAN1 seen in Golgi bodies. During metal interaction in Cd/Zn hyperaccumulator Arabidopsis halleri, a decrease in the uptake of Cd was observed by roots with the increase in Zn concentrations. This clearly demonstrates that Cd influx is largely due to Zn transporters that have a strong preference for Zn over Cd (Zhao et al. 2002). Similarly, the preference of Zn over Ni by some Zn-/Ni-hyperaccumulators supplied with the same concentrations of heavy metals, also strongly suggests that a Zn transporter system might be involved in Ni entry into the roots of Thlaspi caerulescens (Assuncao et al. 2008). A better understanding of these metal transporters and their functionality under multi-elemental conditions to achieve removal of heavy metal ions from the contaminated sites holds great potential. Constitutively large quantities of small organic molecules are present in hyperaccumulator roots that can operate as metal-binding ligands. Different chelators contribute to metal detoxification by buffering cytosolic metal concentrations, whereas chaperone specifically delivers metal ions to organelles and metal requiring proteins. In plants, the principal classes of metal chelators include phytochelatins, metallothioneins, organic acids, and amino acids (Shah and Nongkynrih 2007).

There is only one report by Schor-Fumbarov et al. (2005) who characterized metallothioneins from Azolla filiculoides (Accession No. AF482470) grown under heavy metal stress. These metallothioneins (MTs) are low molecular weight (4–10 kDa), cysteine-rich, metal-binding proteins that bind metals via the thiol groups of cysteine residues. MT proteins have been classified based on the arrangement of Cys residues; Class I includes primarily mammalian MTs containing 20 highly conserved Cys residues and Class II includes MTs from plants and fungi, as well as invertebrate animals. The plants Class II have been further divided into four types based on the arrangement of cysteine residues in the amino- and carboxy-terminal domains (Cobbett and Goldsbrough 2002). Depending on the MT RNA expression in a number of plant species, type 1 MT genes are expressed more abundantly in roots than leaves, whereas type 2 MT genes are expressed primarily in the leaves. Type 3 includes many MTs identified as being expressed during fruit ripening, and type 4 MTs, exemplified by the wheat Ec protein are expressed only in seeds (Cobbet and Goldsbrough 2002). Schor-Fumbarov et al. (2005) concluded that metalloprotein, AzMT2 in Azolla filiculoides showed significant similarity to type 2 MTs in plants and is encoded by the fern genome. The temporal analysis of AzMT2 indicates participation of this MT in both the homeostasis of essential metals as well as detoxification of toxic metals. The lack of research with respect to molecular mechanism involved in phytoremediation potential in Azolla may be in part due to existence of complex nature of interaction between the host—Azolla and its symbionts—bacteria and cyanobacteria (Sood and Ahluwalia 2009) and ambiguous identity/taxonomic nature of its cyanobacterial symbiont (Sood et al. 2008a, b).

Researchable Issues and Future Outlook

An interesting aspect of research on which information is lacking is the evolution of hyperaccumulation and its ecological significance or benefits to hyperaccumulators. Several hypotheses have been put forward some of which provide supporting evidence, while others led to contradictory responses. These include the “inference hypothesis” or elemental allelopathy which postulates that the perennial hyperaccumulators may interfere with the growth of neighboring plants through enrichment of metal in the surrounding environment. Another interesting hypothesis evolves around the elemental defense mechanism, which metal accumulation can serve as a self defense strategy against natural enemies such as pathogens or herbivores. However, in-depth analysis is required in Azolla before conclusions can be drawn. Research on these aspects in Azolla may prove interesting and enlightening in light of its proliferative nature. Azolla possesses all the properties of an ideal plant for use in phytoremediation, such as fast growth rate, high biomass production, moderately extensive root system, easy to harvest and tolerance to a wide range of heavy metals. An integrated approach can be developed using Azolla biomass produced during phytoremediation as source for bioenergy production or bio-ore for recovery of marketable amount of precious heavy metal. The cake left after the extraction of heavy metals can be a good source of protein rich feed for animals or can be use a green manure. Much research is still needed on metal transporters and their regulatory genes. This will provide effective strategies to utilize Azolla for treatment of wastewater with multi-element contamination. The impact of heavy metal uptake on the overall physiological/biochemical metabolism and their regulation at genetic level represent other promising areas of future research. Armed with a better understanding of this symbiotic association, this environment friendly system can be fruitfully employed in the field of phytoremediation.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Chairpersons to Department of Botany, University of Delhi, Delhi and Panjab University, Chandigarh, India for providing financial assistance and research facilities, respectively.

Biographies

Dr. Anjuli Sood

is a Research Associate (post doctoral candidate) at Department of Botany, University of Delhi, Delhi, India. Her research areas include taxonomy, biochemistry, and physiology of Azolla-Anabaena symbiotic system and cyanobacteria. She received fellowship (CSIR-RAship) from Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi India from 2002 to 2007. She has been nominated for “Marquis Who’s Who in the world” from India and her biography appeared in (27th Edition) in year 2010. She is also serving as reviewer for journals of international and national repute.

Dr. P.L. Uniyal

is a Associate Professor at Department of Botany, University of Delhi, Delhi, India. His research interests include biosystematics, taxonomy and ecology of bryophyte, gymnosperms, and pteridophyte. He has guided many M. Phil and Ph. D. students.

Dr. Radha Prasanna

is a senior scientist at Division of Microbiology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. Her research areas include diverse aspects related to cyanobacteria- taxonomy, physiology, ecology, and gene mining. She has several peer reviewed publications on aspects related cyanobacteria as sources of valuable compounds/pigments, and their use as biofertilizers/plant growth promoting agents and biocontrol agents. She has guided several M.Sc and Ph.D students and serves as a Reviewer for international journals.

Dr. A. S. Ahluwalia

is Professor at Department of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. He is also officiating as Chairperson of Department of Environment and Vocational Studies at Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. Research interests of Prof. Ahluwalia include cellular differentiation, biofertilizers, aquaculture, allelopathy, waste water treatment, and biology of Azolla. He has been on the editorial board of reputed journals. He has supervised many M. Phil and Ph.D. students and completed research projects.

References

  1. Ahluwalia AS, Pabby A. Azolla: A green gold mine with diversified applications. Indian Fern Journal. 2002;19:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  2. Amtmann A, Armenguad P. Effects of N, P, K and S on metabolism: New knowledge gained from multi-level analysis. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009;12:275–283. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2009.04.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Antunes APM, Watkins GM, Duncan JR. Batch studies on the removal of gold (III) from aqueous solution by Azolla filiculoides. Biotechnology Letters. 2001;23:249–251. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aravind P, Prasad MNV, Malec P, Waloszek A, Strzałka K. Zinc protects Ceratophyllum demersum L. (free-floating hydrophyte) against reactive oxygen species induced by cadmium. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. 2009;23:50–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2008.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Arora A, Saxena S. Cultivation of Azolla microphylla biomass on secondary treated Delhi municipal effluent. Biomass Bioenergy. 2005;29:60–64. [Google Scholar]
  6. Arora A, Sood A, Singh PK. Hyperaccumulation of cadmium and nickel by Azolla species. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2004;3:302–304. [Google Scholar]
  7. Arora A, Saxena S, Sharma DK. Tolerance and phytoaccumulation of chromium by three Azolla species. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology. 2006;22:97–100. [Google Scholar]
  8. Arora M, Kiran K, Rani S, Rani A, Kaur B, Mittal N. Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables irrigated with water from different sources. Food Chemistry. 2008;111:811–815. [Google Scholar]
  9. Assuncao AGL, Bleeker P, Ten Bookum WM, Vooijs R, Schat H. Intraspecific variation in metal preference patterns for hyperaccumulation in Thalspi caerulenscens: Evidence for binary metal exposures. Plant and Soil. 2008;303:289–299. [Google Scholar]
  10. Babić M, Radić S, Cvjetko P, Roje V, Pevalek-Kozlina B, Pavlica M. Antioxidative response of Lemna minor plants exposed to thallium(I)-acetate. Aquatic Botany. 2009;91:166–172. [Google Scholar]
  11. Benaroya BO, Tzin V, Tel-Or E, Zamski E. Lead accumulation in the aquatic fern Azolla filiculoides. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2004;42:639–645. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2004.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bennicelli R, Stezpniewska Z, Banach A, Szajnocha K, Ostrowski J. The ability of Azolla caroliniana to remove heavy metals (Hg(II), Cr(III), Cr(VI)) from municipal waste water. Chemosphere. 2004;55:141–146. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Boulé KM, Vicente JAF, Nabais C, Prasad MNV, Freitas H. Ecophysiological tolerance of duckweeds exposed to copper. Aquatic Toxicology. 2009;91:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2008.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Boyd CE. Vascular aquatic plants for mineral nutrient removal from pollutant water. Economic Botany. 1970;24:95–103. [Google Scholar]
  15. Brook, R.R., and B.H. Robinson. 1998. Aquatic phytoremediation by accumulator plants. In Plants that hyperaccumulate heavy metals: Their role in phytoremediation, microbiology, archaeology, mineral exploration and phytomining, ed. Brook, R.R, 203–226. Wallingford, UK: CABI International.
  16. Carrapiço, F. 2010. Azolla as a superorganism. Its implication in symbiotic studies. In Symbioses and stress, ed. J. Seckbach and M. Grube, 227–241. Berlin: Springer.
  17. Central Pollution Control Board. 2008. Status of water quality in India 2007, New Delhi, India: CPCB.
  18. Chambers PA, Lacoul P, Murphy KJ, Thomaz SM. Global diversity of aquatic macrophytes in freshwater. Hydrobiologia. 2008;595:9–26. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chang JS, Yoon IH, Kim K-W. Heavy metal and arsenic accumulating fern species as potential ecological indicators in As-contaminated abandoned mines. Ecological Indicators. 2009;9:1275–1279. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cheng S. Heavy metals in plants and phytoremediation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2003;10:335–340. doi: 10.1065/espr2002.11.141.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cobbet C, Goldsbrough P. Phytochelatins and metallothioneins: Role in heavy metal detoxification and homeostasis. Annual Reviews in Plant Biology. 2002;53:159–182. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cohen-Shoel N, Barkay Z, Ilzycer D, Gilath I, Tel-Or E. Biofiltration of toxic elements by Azolla biomass. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 2002;135:93–104. [Google Scholar]
  23. Conwell DA, Jr, Zoltek J, Patrinely CD, Furman TS, Kim JI. Nutrient removal by water hyacinths. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 1977;49:57–65. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dai LP, Xiong ZT, Huang Y, Li MJ. Cadmium-induced changes in pigments, total phenolics, and phenylalanine ammonia-lyase activity in fronds of Azolla imbricata. Environmental Toxicology. 2006;21:505–512. doi: 10.1002/tox.20212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dai LP, Xiong ZT, Ma HH. Effects of cadmium on nitrogen metabolism in Azolla imbricata-Anabaena azollae symbiosis. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2009;29:1629–1638. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dhir B, Sharmila P, Saradhi PP. Potential of aquatic macrophytes for removing contaminants from the environment. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 2009;39:754–781. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dhir B, Sharmila P, Pardha Saradhi P, Nasim SA. Physiological and antioxidant responses of Salvinia natans exposed to chromium-rich wastewater. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2009;72:1790–1797. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2009.03.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Dhote S, Dixit S. Water quality improvement through macrophytes- a review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2009;152:149–153. doi: 10.1007/s10661-008-0303-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Eccles H. Removal of heavy metals from effluent streams - why select a biological process? International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation. 1995;35:5–16. [Google Scholar]
  30. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Electrokinetic laboratory and field processes applicable to radioactive and hazardous mixed waste in soil and ground water. EPA 402/R-97/006. Washington, DC.
  31. Espinoza-Qui˜nones FR, Módenes AN, Thomé LP, Palácio SM, Trigueros DEG, Oliveira AP, Szymanski N. Study of the bioaccumulation kinetic of lead by living aquatic macrophyte Salvinia auriculata. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2009;150:316–322. [Google Scholar]
  32. Firdaus-e-Bareen, Khilji. S. Bioaccumulation of metals from tannery sludge by Typha angustifolia L. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2008;18:3314–3320. [Google Scholar]
  33. Flathman PE, Lanza GR. Phytoremediation: current views on an emerging green technology. Journal of Soil Contamination. 1998;7:415–432. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fogarty RV, Dostalek P, Patzak M, Votruba J, Tel-Or E, Tobin JM. Metal removal by immobilised and non-immobilised Azolla filiculoides. Biotechnology Techniques. 1999;13:533–538. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gaumat S, Mishra K, Rai UN, Baipal U. Ultramorphological variation in Azolla pinnata R.Br. under single and mixed metal treatment with lead and iron. Phytomorphology. 2008;58:111–116. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gaur JP, Noraho N, Chauhan YS. Relationship between heavy metal accumulation and toxicity in Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleid. and Azolla pinnata R. Br. Aquatic Botany. 1994;94:183–192. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoang Ha NTH, Sakakibara M, Sano S, Hori RS, Sera K. The potential of Eleocharis acicularis for phytoremediation: Case study at an abandoned mine site. Clean Soil, Air, Water. 2009;37:203–208. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hu C, Zhang L, Hamilton D, Zhou W, Yang T, Zhu D. Physiological responses induced by copper bioaccumulation in Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Hydrobiologia. 2007;579:211–218. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jafari N, Senobari Z, Pathak RK. Biotechnological potential of Azolla filiculoides,Azolla microphylla and Azolla pinnata for biosorption of Pb(II), Mn(II), Cu (II) and Zn(II) Ecology, Environment and Conservation. 2010;16:443–449. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jain SK, Vasudevan P, Jha NK. Removal of some heavy metals from polluted water by aquatic plants: Studies on duckweed and water velvet. Biological Wastes. 1989;28:115–126. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jain SK, Vasudevan P, Jha NK. Azolla pinnata R. Br. and Lemna minor L. for removal of lead and zinc from polluted water. Water Research. 1990;24:177–183. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kar PP, Singh DP. Effect of some heavy metals on sporulation and growth of Azolla caroliniana and Azolla microphylla. Asian Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences. 2003;5:105–114. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kathiresan RM. Integration of elements of a farming system for sustainable weed and pest management in the tropics. Crop Protection. 2007;26:424–429. [Google Scholar]
  44. Khellaf N, Zerdaoui M. Phytoaccumulation of zinc by the aquatic plant, Lemna gibba L. Bioresource Technology. 2009;100:6137–6140. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.06.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Khosravi M, Rakhshaee R, Ganji MT. Pre-treatment processes of Azolla filiculoides to remove Pb(II), Cd (II), Ni (II) and Zn (II) from aqueous solution in batch and fixed-bed reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2005;B127:228–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lokeshwari H, Chandrappa GT. Effects of heavy metal contamination from anthropogenic sources on Dasarahalli tank, India. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management. 2007;12:121–128. [Google Scholar]
  47. Maleva MG, Nekrasova GF, Malec P, Prasad MNV, Strzałka K. Ecophysiological tolerance of Elodea canadensis to nickel exposure. Chemosphere. 2009;77:392–398. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.07.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Mallick N, Shardendu, Rai. LC. Removal of heavy metals by two free floating aquatic macrophytes. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences. 1996;9:399–407. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Marques APGC, Rangel AOSS, Castro PML. Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils: Phytoremediation as a potentially promising clean-up technology. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 2009;39:622–654. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mashkani SG, Ghazvini PTM. Biotechnological potential of Azolla filiculoides for biosorption of Cs and Sr: Application of micro-PIXE for measurement of Biosorption. Bioresource Technology. 2009;100:1915–1921. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Mishra KK, Rai UN, Prakash O. Bioconcentration and phytotoxicity of Cd in Eichhornia crassipes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2007;130:237–243. doi: 10.1007/s10661-006-9392-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Mishra S, Srivastava S, Tripathi RD, Trivedi PK. Thiol metabolism and antioxidant systems complement each other during arsenate detoxification in Ceratophyllum demersum L. Aquatic Toxicology. 2007;86:205–215. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2007.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Mishra S, Srivastava S, Tripathi RD, Dwivedi S, Shukla MK. Response of antioxidant enzymes in coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum L.) plants under cadmium stress. Environmental Toxicology. 2008;23:294–301. doi: 10.1002/tox.20340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Mishra VK, Tripathi BD. Concurrent removal and accumulation of heavy metals by the three aquatic macrophytes. Bioresource Technology. 2008;99:7091–7097. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Mishra VK, Upadhyay AR, Pandey SK, Tripathi BD. Concentrations of heavy metals and aquatic macrophytes of Govind Ballabh Pant Sagar an anthropogenic lake affected by coal mining effluent. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2008;141:49–58. doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-9877-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Mishra VK, Tripathi BD, Kim KH. Removal and accumulation of mercury by aquatic macrophytes from an open cast coal mine effluent. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2009;172:749–754. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.07.059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Mkandawire M, Taubert B, Dudel EG. Capacity of Lemna gibba L. (Duckweed) for uranium and arsenic phytoremediation in mine tailing waters. International Journal of Phytoremediation. 2004;6:347–362. doi: 10.1080/16226510490888884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Molisani MM, Rocha R, Machado W, Barreto RC, Lacerda LD. Mercury contents in aquatic macrophytes from two reservoirs in the paraíba do sul:guandú river system, Se Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology. 2006;66:101–107. doi: 10.1590/s1519-69842006000100013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Monferran MV, Sanchez Agudo JA, Pignata ML, Wunderlin DA. Copper-induced response of physiological parameters and antioxidant enzymes in the aquatic macrophyte Potamogeton pusillus. Environmental Pollution. 2009;157:2570–2576. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.02.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Mufarrege MM, Hadad HA, Maine MA. Response of Pistia stratiotes to heavy metals (Cr, Ni, and Zn) and phosphorous. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2010;58:53–61. doi: 10.1007/s00244-009-9350-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Nedumaran B, Velan M. Removal of copper(II) ions from aqueous solutions by Azolla rongpong: Batch and continuous study. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering. 2008;50:23–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Olguín EJ, Hernández E, Ramos I. The effect of both different light conditions and the pH value on the capacity of Salvinia minima Baker for removing cadmium, lead and chromium. Acta Biotechnologica. 2002;22:121–131. [Google Scholar]
  63. Pabby A, Dua S, Ahluwalia AS. Changes in nitrogen metabolism of Azolla microphylla and Azolla pinnata on supplementation of nitrogen fertilizer. Phykos. 2000;39:51–59. [Google Scholar]
  64. Pabby A, Dua S, Ahluwalia AS. Changes in ammonia-assimilating enzymes in response to different nitrate levels in Azolla pinnata and A. microphylla. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2001;158:899–903. [Google Scholar]
  65. Pabby A, Ahluwalia AS, Dua S. Growth response and changes in ammona-assimilating enzymes at elevated temperatures in Azolla pinnata R. Br. and A. microphylla Kaul. Indian Journal of Microbiology. 2002;42:315–318. [Google Scholar]
  66. Pabby A, Ahluwalia AS, Dua S. Temperature stress induced changes in growth and biochemical constituents of Azolla microphylla and Azolla pinnata. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2002;7:140–145. [Google Scholar]
  67. Pabby A, Ahluwalia AS, Dua S. Current status of Azolla taxonomy. In: Ahluwalia AS, editor. Phycology: Principles, Processes and Applications. India: Daya Publishers; 2003. pp. 48–63. [Google Scholar]
  68. Pabby A, Prasanna R, Singh PK. Azolla-Anabaena symbiosis- from traditional agriculture to biotechnology. Indian Journal of Biotechnology. 2003;2:26–37. [Google Scholar]
  69. Pabby A, Prasanna R, Nayak S, Singh PK. Physiological characterization of the cultured and freshly isolated endosymbionts from different species of Azolla. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2003;41:73–79. [Google Scholar]
  70. Pabby A, Prasanna R, Singh PK. Morphological characterization of cultured and freshly separated cyanobionts (Nostocals, Cyanophyta) from Azolla species. Acta Botanica Hungarica. 2004;46:211–223. [Google Scholar]
  71. Pabby A, Prasanna R, Singh PK. Biological significance of Azolla and its utilization in agriculture. Proceedings of Indian National Science Academy B. 2004;70:301–335. [Google Scholar]
  72. Padmesh TVN, Vijayraghavan K, Sekaran G, Velan M. Application of Azolla rongpong on biosorption of acid red 88, acid green 3, acid orange 7 and acid blue 15 from synthetic solutions. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2006;122:55–63. [Google Scholar]
  73. Paiva BL, de Oliveira JG, Azevedo RA, Ribeiro DR, da silva MG, Vitória AP. Ecophysiological responses of water hyacinth exposed to Cr3+ and Cr6+ Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2009;65:403–409. [Google Scholar]
  74. Pietrobelli JMT, de Módenes AN, Fagundes-Klen MRF, Espinoza-Quiñones FR. Cadmium, copper and zinc biosorption study by non-living Egeria densa biomass. Water Air Soil Pollution. 2009;202:385–392. [Google Scholar]
  75. Prasad MNV, Freitas H. Metal hyperaccumulation in plants—Biodiversity prospecting for phytoremediation technology. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology. 2003;6:285–321. [Google Scholar]
  76. Rahman MA, Hasegawa H, Ueda K, Maki T, Okumura C, Rahman MM. Arsenic accumulation in duckweed (Spirodela polyrhiza L.): A good option for phytoremediation. Chemosphere. 2007;69:493–499. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.04.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Rahman MA, Hasegawa H, Ueda K, Maki T, Rahman MM. Influence of EDTA and chemical species on arsenic accumulation in Spirodela polyrhiza L. (duckweed) Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2008;70:311–318. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Rai LC, Gaur JP, Kumar HD. Phycology and heavy metal pollution. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 1981;56:99–151. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rai PK. Phytoremediation of Hg and Cd from industrial effluent using an aquatic free floating macrophyte Azolla pinnata. Intentional Journal of Phytoremediation. 2008;10:430–439. doi: 10.1080/15226510802100606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Rai PK. Heavy metal phytoremediation from aquatic ecosystems with special reference to macrophytes. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 2009;39:697–753. [Google Scholar]
  81. Rai PK. Heavy metal pollution in lentic ecosystem of sub-tropical industrial region and its phytoremediation. International Journal of Phytoremediation. 2010;12:226–242. doi: 10.1080/15226510903563843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Rai PK. Microcosom investigation of phytoremediation of Cr using Azolla pinnata. International Journal of Phytoremediation. 2010;12:96–104. doi: 10.1080/15226510902767155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Rai PK, Tripathi BD. Comparative assessment of Azolla pinnata and Vallisneria spiralis in Hg removal from G.B. Pant Sagar of Singrauli Industrial region, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2009;148:75–84. doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-0140-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Rakhshaee R, Khosravi M, Masoud Taghi Ganji MT. Kinetic modeling and thermodynamic study to remove Pb(II), Cd(II), Ni(II) and Zn(II) from aqueous solution using dead and living Azolla filiculoides. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2006;B134:120–129. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.10.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Rascio N, Navari-Izzo F. Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: How and why do they do it? And what makes them so interesting? Plant Science. 2011;180:169–181. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Sánchez-Chardi A, Peñarroja-Matutano C, Borrás M, Nadal J. Bioaccumulation of metals and effects of a landfill in small mammals Part III: Structural alterations. Environmental Research. 2009;109:960–967. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2009.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Sánchez-Galván G, Monroy O, Gómez J, Olguín EJ. Assessment of the hyperaccumulating lead capacity of Salvinia minima using bioadsorption and intracellular accumulation factors. Water, Air, and Soil pollution. 2008;194:77–90. [Google Scholar]
  88. Sánchez-Viveros G, Gonzalez D, Alacon A, Ferrera-Cerrato R. Copper effects on photosynthetic activity and membrane leakage of Azolla filiculoides and A. caroliniana. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2010;12:365–368. [Google Scholar]
  89. Sanyahumbi D, Duncan JR, Zhao M, Hille R. Removal of lead from solution by the non-viable biomass of the water fern Azolla filiculoides. Biotechnology Letters. 1998;20:745–747. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sarkar A, Jana S. Heavy metal pollutant tolerance of Azolla pinnata. Water, Air, and Soil pollution. 1986;27:15–18. [Google Scholar]
  91. Sasmaz A, Obek E, Hasar H. The accumulation of heavy metals in Typha latifolia L. grown in a stream carrying secondary effluent. Ecological Engineering. 2008;33:278–284. [Google Scholar]
  92. Saygideger S, Gulnaz O, Istifli ES, Yucel N. Adsorption of Cd(II), Cu(II) and Ni(II) ions by Lemna minor L. effect of physicochemical environment. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2005;126:96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Schor-Fumbarov T, Goldsbrough PB, Adam Z, Tel-Or E. Characterization and expression of a metallothionein gene in the aquatic fern Azolla filiculoides under heavy metal stress. Planta. 2005;223:69–76. doi: 10.1007/s00425-005-0070-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Schwarz A, Haves I. Effect of changing water clarity on characean biomass and species composition in a large oligotrophic lake. Aquatic Botany. 1997;56:169–181. [Google Scholar]
  95. Seidal K. Macrophytes and water purification. In: Tourbier J, Pierson RW, editors. Biological control for water pollution. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press; 1976. pp. 109–121. [Google Scholar]
  96. Sela M, Tel-Or E, Eberhardt F, Huttermann A. Localization and toxic effects of cadmium, copper, and uranium in Azolla. Plant Physiology. 1988;88:30–36. doi: 10.1104/pp.88.1.30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Sela M, Garty J, Tel-Or E. The accumulation and effect of heavy metal on the water fern Azolla filiculoides. New Phytologist. 1989;112:7–12. [Google Scholar]
  98. Sela M, Fritz E, Huttermann A, Tel-Or E. Studies on cadmium localization in the water fern Azolla. Physiologia Plantarum. 1990;79:547–553. [Google Scholar]
  99. Serag MS, El-Hakeem A, Badway M, Mousa MA. On the ecology of Azolla filiculoides Lam. in Damietta District, Egypt. Limnologica. 2000;30:73–81. [Google Scholar]
  100. Shah K, Nongkynrih JM. Metal hyperaccumulation and bioremediation. Biologia Plantarum. 2007;51:618–634. [Google Scholar]
  101. Shi GX, Xu QS, Xie KB, Xu N, Zhang XL, Zeng XM, Zhou HW, Zhu L. Physiology and ultrastructure of Azolla imbricata as affected by Hg2+ and Cd2+ toxicity. Acta Botanica Sinica. 2003;45:437–444. [Google Scholar]
  102. Sivaci ER, Sivaci A, Sokmen M. Biosorption of cadmium by Myriophyllum spicatum L. and Myriophyllum triphyllum orchard. Chemosphere. 2004;56:1043–1048. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.05.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Siwela AH, Nyathi CB, Naik YS. Metal accumulation and antioxidant enzyme activity in C. gariepinus, Catfish, and O. mossambicus, tilapia, collected from lower Mguza and Wright Dams, Zimbabwe. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2009;83:648–651. doi: 10.1007/s00128-009-9861-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Skinner K, Wright N, Goff EP. Mercury uptake and accumulation by four species of aquatic plants. Environmental Pollution. 2007;145:234–237. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2006.03.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Sood A, Ahluwalia AS. Cyanobacterial–plant symbioses with emphasis on Azolla-Anabaena symbiotic system. Indian Fern Journal. 2009;26:166–178. [Google Scholar]
  106. Sood A, Prasanna R, Singh PK. Utilization of SDS-PAGE of whole cell proteins for characterization of Azolla species. Annales Botanici Fennici. 2007;44:283–286. [Google Scholar]
  107. Sood A, Prasanna R, Singh PK. Fingerprinting of freshly separated and cultured cyanobionts from different Azolla species using morphological and molecular markers. Aquatic Botany. 2008;88:142–147. [Google Scholar]
  108. Sood A, Prasanna R, Prasanna BM, Singh PK. Genetic diversity among and within cultured cyanobionts of diverse species of Azolla. Folia Microbiologica. 2008;53:35–43. doi: 10.1007/s12223-008-0005-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Sood A, Pabbi S, Uniyal PL. Effect of paraquat on lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzymes in aquatic fern Azolla microphylla Kual. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2011;58:667–673. [Google Scholar]
  110. Srivastava J, Gupta A, Chandra H. Managing water quality with aquatic macrophytes. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology. 2008;7:255–266. [Google Scholar]
  111. Stepniewska Z, Bennicelli RP, Balakhnina TI, Szajnocha K, Banach A, Woliñska A. Potential of Azolla caroliniana for the removal of Pb and Cd from wastewaters. International Agrophysics. 2005;19:251–255. [Google Scholar]
  112. Stewart KK. Nutrient removal potential of various aquatic plants. Hyacinth Control Journal. 1970;8:34–35. [Google Scholar]
  113. Suresh B, Ravishankar GA. Phytoremediation: A novel and promising approach for environmental clean-up. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 2004;24:97–124. doi: 10.1080/07388550490493627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Umali LJ, Duncan JR, Burgess JE. Performance of dead Azolla filiculoides biomass in biosorption of Au from wastewater. Biotechnology Letters. 2006;28:45–49. doi: 10.1007/s10529-005-9686-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Upadhyay AR, Mishra VK, Pandey SK, Tripathi BD. Biofiltration of secondary treated municipal wastewater in a tropical city. Ecological Engineering. 2007;30:9–15. [Google Scholar]
  116. Uysal Y, Taner F. Effect of pH, temperature, and lead concentration on the bioremoval of lead from water using Lemna minor. International Journal of Phytoremediation. 2009;11:591–608. doi: 10.1080/15226510902717648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Verma VK, Tewari S, Rai JPN. Ion exchange during heavy metal bio-sorption from aqueous solution by dried biomass of macrophytes. Bioresource Technology. 2008;99:1932–1938. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Volesky B. Detoxification of metal-bearing effluents: Biosorption for the next century. Hydrometallurgy. 2001;59:203–216. [Google Scholar]
  119. Wagnar GM. Azolla: A review on its biology and utilization. Botanical Reviews. 1997;63:1–26. [Google Scholar]
  120. Wolverton BC, Mckown MM. Water hyacinth for removal of phenols from polluted waters. Aquatic Botany. 1976;30:29–37. [Google Scholar]
  121. Wolverton BC, McDonald RC. Don’t waste waterweeds. New Scientist. 1976;71:318–320. [Google Scholar]
  122. Wooten JW, Dodd DJ. Growth of water hyacinth in treated sewage effluent. Economic Botany. 1976;30:29–37. [Google Scholar]
  123. Yadav SK, Juwarkar AA, Kumar GP, Thawale PR, Singh SK, Chakrabarti T. Bioaccumulation and phyto-translocation of arsenic, chromium and zinc by Jatropha curcas L.: Impact of dairy sludge and biofertilizer. Bioresource Technology. 2009;100:4616–4622. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.04.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Zhang X, Lin AJ, Zhao FJ, Xu GZ, Duan GL, Zhu YG. Arsenic accumulation by aquatic fern Azolla: comparison of arsenate uptake, speciation and efflux by A. caroliniana and A. filiculoides. Environmental Pollution. 2008;156:1149–1155. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Zhang X, Zhao FJ, Huang Q, Williams PN, Sun GX, Zhu YG. Arsenic uptake and speciation in the rootless duckweed Wolffia globosa. New Phytologist. 2009;182:421–428. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02758.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Zhao FJ, Hamon RE, Lombi E, McLaughlin MJ, McGrath SP. Characteristics of cadmium uptake in two contrasting ecotypes of the hyperaccumulators Thalspi caerulenscens. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2002;53:535–543. doi: 10.1093/jexbot/53.368.535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Zhao M, Duncan JR. Batch removal of sexivalent chromium by Azolla filiculoides. Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry. 1997;26:179–182. [Google Scholar]
  128. Zhao M, Duncan JR. Bed-depth-service-time analysis on column removal of Zn2+ using Azolla filiculoides. Biotechnology Letters. 1998;20:37–39. [Google Scholar]
  129. Zhao M, Duncan JR. Removal and recovery of nickel from aqueous solution and electroplating rinse effluent using Azolla filiculoides. Process Biochemistry. 1998;33:249–255. [Google Scholar]
  130. Zhao M, Duncan JR, Hille RP. Removal and recovery of zinc from solution and electroplating effluent using Azolla filiculoides. Water Research. 1999;33:1516–1522. [Google Scholar]
  131. Zhou Q, Zhang J, Fu J, Shi J, Jiang G. Biomonitoring: An appealing tool for assessment of metal pollution in the aquatic ecosystem. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2008;606:135–150. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2007.11.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Ambio are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES